SUSTAINABILITY CRISIS Climate Change, and Sustainable ... · We employ this 12 focus because neither the public nor our policy-makers are responding adequately to the 13 worsening

SUSTAINABILITY CRISIS,1

Climate Change, and Sustainable Development 2

Citizens Climate Lobby Talking Points 3

Tom Sawyer Hopkins 4

5

Preface 6

This document advocates global sustainable development. It explores the dynamic 7

changes needed to transition global human society towards a sustainable future. Any proposal 8

for such an immense transformation of our political, economic, and technological 9

infrastructures must answer the questions of why, how, and when. Here we focus mostly on 10

why, with some discussion on how, and answer when with one word: NOW! We employ this 11

focus because neither the public nor our policy-makers are responding adequately to the 12

worsening unsustainable conditions that are pushing the human ecosystem to the brink of a 13

cascade collapse. We cannot blindly use the same business-as-usual approach to resolve this 14

situation, because that approach is the one that generated it. By the same token, without a 15

thorough recognition of this situation and a comprehensive, science-based understanding of the 16

dynamics causing the deterioration, we will not learn how to efficiently pursue sustainable 17

development on a global scale. Ironically however, we do know what needs to be changed. 18

We also have most of the knowledge, methods, and strategies to make the changes. But we still 19

lack an integration of this combined knowledge, packaged and available to sufficiently raise the 20

public awareness, to gain the commitment of governing bodies, and to secure the global 21

cooperation necessary to pursue global sustainable development. 22

23

With this initial distribution, we hope to stimulate comments that can update and correct 24

the document to render it both more factually accurate and more politically useful and effective. 25

Those who contribute constructive suggestions will be acknowledged as collaborating authors 26

in the web site version. 27

TS Hopkins, 1 Nov 15

2

Table of Contents 28

29

INTRODUCTION 30

The Role of Humans in Global Change 6 31

32

Chapter I 33

A. DEFINITIVE CHALLENGES 34

A.1. Global Change 10 35

1.1 HUMAN REDICAMENT 361.1a Resource Debt 371.1b Global Wealth Gap 381.1c Paradigm Shift 391.1d Global Self-organization 40

A.2. Climate Change 17 41

2.1 DEFINING THE ISSUE 422.1a Earth Systems 432.1b Systems Perspective 442.1c CC role in Global Change 45

2.2 FINDING OUR RESPONSE 462.2a Current situation 47

2.2b Obstacles to Response 482.2c Confronting Climate Change. 492.2d US actions 50

A.3. Public Awareness 25 51

3.1 MESSAGES & MESSENGERS 523.1a Familiarity with the Message 533.1b Messengers 543.1c Message to Policy 55

Chapter 1 Endnotes 27 56

57

Chapter 2 58

B. COMMUNICATION 59

B.1. Changing Media 35 60

1.1 CREATING CREDIBILITY 611.1a Expansion of Communication 621.1b Establishing Veracity 63

B.2. Democratic Efficacy 37 64

2.1 INFORMATION FOR LEADERSHIP 652.1a Role of Leadership 662.1b Climate Change Example 67

B.3. Public Opinion 38 68

3.1 LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY 693.1a Opinion Polling 703.1b Climate Change Example 71

B. Discussion 72

B. Endnotes 42 73

74

Chapter 3 75

C. POLTICAL 76

C.1. Mandate for Sustainability 44 77

1.1 MANAGEMENT OF OUR SOCIETIES 781.1a Evolving Management 791.1b Precautionary Policy 801.1c Dealing with Overconsumption 811.1d Dealing with Overpopulation 821.1e Dealing with Corporate Control 83

C.2. Expanded Governance 48 84

2.1 COMPLEXITY OF COMPOSITION 85


3

2.1a More Complete Representation 862.1b Performance Indicators 87

C.3. Improving Policy Decisions 50 88

3.1 EXERTING LEADERSHIP 893.1a Facilitating Leadership 903.1b. Climate Change Example 91

3.2 OBJECTIFICATION OF POLICY 923.2a Decision Making 933.2b Strategies 943.2c Risks 95

C. Discussion 96

C. Endnotes 55 97

98

Chapter 4 99

D. ECONOMY 100

D.1. Unstable & Unsustainable 58 101

1.1 NOT SELF-REGULATING 1021.1a Should we Restructure? 103

D2. Basic Flaws 59 104

2.1 WHAT NEEDS CHANGING 1052.1a Basic Flaws 1062.1b Wrong Direction 107

D.3. What needs Restructuring? 61 108

3.1 DYSFUNCTIONAL ASPECTS 1093.1a Externalizing Values 1103.1b Financial Growth 1113.1c Measuring Growth 1123.1d Interest 1133.1e Wealth Inequality 1143.1f Technology 1153.1g Negenthropic Growth 1163.1h Scale 1173.1i Monetary Standard 118

D.4. Why include Natural Capital? 67 119

4.1 WHY TREAT NATURE’S GOODS & SERVICES AS FREE? 120

4.1a Our Wrong Assumption 1214.2 QUANTIFYING NATURAL CAPITAL 122

4.2a Ecosystems Goods and Services 1234.2b Valuation 1244.2c Cost-Benefit Analysis 125

4.3 ARE WE MISUSING RENEWABLE RESOURCES? 1264.2a Usage 127

4.3 WHY WORRY ABOUT NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES? 128 4.3a Minerals 1294.4 WHAT’S WRONG WITH CONVENTIONAL FOSSIL FUEL? 130

4.4a Nonrenewable and depleting 1314.4b Dealing with Depletion 132

4.5 SHOULD WE COUNT ON UNCONVENTIONAL FOSSIL FUEL? 133 4.5a Unconventional Sources 134

4.5b Production & Consumption 1354.5c Insufficient Production 1364.5d Environmental Concerns 137

D.5. Social Capital 84 138

5.1 WHY DO SOCIETAL VALUES MATTER? 1395.1a Defining Social Capital 1405.1b Descriptors 141

5.2 QUANTIFYING SOCIAL CAPITAL 1425.2a Useful Indices 1435.2b Relation between social and Financial Capital 1445.2c Gini Index 145

5.3 RAMIFICATIONS OF INEQUALITY 146


4

5.3a Wellbeing 1475.3b Happiness 1485.3c Economic Inequality 1495.3d Inequality and Civic Engagement 1505.3e Lessons from Trend 151 152

D. Discussion 153

D. Endnotes 101 154

155

Chapter 5 156

E. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 157

E.1. Sustainability as a Goal 102 158

1.1 DEFINING THE GOAL 1591.1a What is Sustainability? 1601.1b What is Sustainable Development? 161

E.2. Global Overshoot 106 162

2.1 WHAT INDICATES OUR UNSUSTAINABILITY? 1632.1a Overshooting our Carrying Capacity 1642.1b Destroying our Biocapacity 1652.1c Our Demanding Economy 1662.1d The lack of Natural and Social Capital Valuations 1672.1e The Consequences of Cheap Energy 1682.1f Our Suffocating Waste Stream 169

2.1g Our Growing Population Growth 120 170

E.3. Resource Management 171

3.1 WHAT IS OUR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT? 1723.1a Our Resource Management Strategy 173

E.4. Aspects of Implementation 122 174

4.1 COMMITTING TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 1754.1a Political Commitment 1764.1b Path and Direction 1774.1c Starting References 178

4.2 CONTROLS, CONSTRAINTS, AND COMPLEXITY 1794.2a Boundaries and Thresholds 1804.2b Resilience and Adaptation 1814.3c Self-organizations 182

4.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS 1834.3a Economic Revisions 1844.3b Social Responsibility Vs. Individual Freedom 185

4.3c The Sustainable Trade-Offs 186

E.5. Sustainability and Spirituality 187

5.1 CONVERGENT PROPERTIES 188

5.1a Similar Properties and Goals 189

5.1b Faith-Based Convictions 190

191

E. Discussion 192

E. Endnotes 144 193

194

195

Chapter 6 196

F. COMPLEX SYSTEMS 197

F.1. Systems Theory 150 198

1.1 SHORT EXPLANATION 199

F.2. Natural Laws 152 200

2.1 RELEVANCE TO SUSTAINABILITY 201

2.1a Cooperation and Competition 202

2.1b Conservation of Energy 203

2.1c Entropy 204

F.3. Disturbance Response 157 205


5

3.1 REGARDING POLICY DECISIONS 206

3.1a Self-organization 207

3.1b Multiple Stresses 208

F.4. Managing Earth Systems 160 209

4.1 POLICY FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS 210

4.1a Integrating Natural and Human Laws 211

4.1b SPICOSA Example 212

F.5. Atmosphere and Fossil Fuel 168 213

5.1. FOSSIL FUEL DISTURBANCE 214

5.1a Losing Equilibrium 215

5.1b Achilles Heel 216

5.1c Cheap Energy 217

F.6. Atmosphere-Fossil Fuel Interactions 175 218

4.1 FEEDBACK LOOPS 219

4.1a Atmospheric Window 220

4.1b Air Pollution 221

4.1c FF resource Exhaustion 222

4.1c Sea Level Rise 223

F.7. Climate Change Urgency 182 224

7.1 GLOBAL THREAT 225

7.2 MULTIPLE ISSUES 226

7.3 COMPLEX ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES 227

228

F. Endnotes. 195 229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262


6

INTRODUCTION 263

264

The Role of Humans in the Sustainability Crisis 265

We must take a more integrated look at why and how we humans are destroying 266

our habitat so that we can design restorative reactions that will more effectively 267

transition us to a sustainable society. 268

269

The Struggle. The lovely satellite pictures of the earth laced with clouds swirling 270

over the land and the sea have inspired pride in our technical prowess and our unique 271

position in the universe, a vision that belies the draconian struggle occurring on the 272

surface. It is a struggle to save the planet for human habitation, in which humans are 273

both perpetrators and victims. The key protagonists are the human constructs of our 274

economy, our governance, and our cultural beliefs. Our economy is driving natural-275

resource exhaustion and intolerable social inequalities. Our governance is corrupted by 276

corporate interests and weakened by the lack of public awareness. The victims are, or 277

will be, all humans and all the ecosystems that support them with goods and services. 278

279

The Misconceptions. In our attitude toward the looming crisis, we are suffering from a 280

number of perilous misperceptions. First, the assumption that the earth’s capacity to 281

sustain humanity is without limits has tempted us to exploit the earth’s resources to 282

very near the point of no return without recognizing or addressing our error. Second, 283

the assumption that we can ‘fix’ environmental and social problems with money or 284

technology has accompanied the morphing of the economy’s assumed goal from that 285

of generating prosperity for all to that of wealth for a few. Third, the assumption that 286

our economy is self-regulating and should be the governing mechanism in solving 287

these environmental and social problems is fundamentally wrong because our 288

economic system omits from its accounting those very environmental and social 289

problems that it would presumably solve. Fourth, the assumption that financial growth 290

(GDP) is correlated with the well-being of a nation’s population has provided 291

ideological cover for the growth of plutocracy and the obsessive pursuit of individual 292

wealth to the detriment of the social and natural environments. In fact, multinational 293

studies show that in every nation studied there is a positive correlation between GDP 294

and individual happiness up to a modest income level, after which happiness does not 295

further increase but levels off even while income grows. 296

As a result, the growing human presence has rapidly changed from being a 297

harmonious component of the earth’s natural systems to an invasive competitor within 298

the biosphere. The impact of our disruptive presence (Global Change) is evident in the 299

numerous trends currently destabilizing environmental systems and decreasing the 300

earth’s biocapacity that supports human societies: accelerating climate change, water 301

misuse, nonrenewable energy use, destructive and conflict-ridden minerals extraction, 302

deforestation, desertification, monoculture, shrinking bioproduction, toxic pollution, 303

and rapidly diminishing biodiversity. Interrelated with these environmental trends are 304

the destabilizing social trends that are causing negative societal impacts and that 305

inhibit proper societal function, including food and water shortages, poverty, poor 306

health, fragile or failed states, corruption, social unrest, ethnic marginalization, mass 307

emigrations, and armed conflicts. Both environmental and social trends are manifest 308

over a wide range of geopolitical scales. Finally, the assumption that we have time to 309

reverse these trends has put global stability at great risk 310

311

The History. Since the industrial revolution, humanity has increasingly expanded its 312

dependence on the planet’s natural systems and, while neglecting its inherent 313


7

codependence on them, has reached a point of mutual destabilization: society 314

destabilizes nature, nature destabilizes society. To the inhabitants of a rich nation, this 315

situation can seem so preposterous that they discount it, mostly because they assume 316

they can acquire resources cheaply from the poor nations. In addition, those of us who 317

are rich and who have the potential to change have invented ways to hide the 318

consequences from ourselves—not just the plundering and polluting of natural 319

systems, but also the marginalization of the other half of the human population. In 320

contrast, the inhabitants of poor nations are too vulnerable and powerless to effectively 321

confront the tide of devastation. Hence the Human Predicament, wherein the rich can’t 322

find the will and the poor can’t find the means to reverse the collapse of their habitats. 323

The tragic irony is that while all individuals hope for a better life for themselves and 324

their progeny, the poorer hope their children will have the opportunity for it and the 325

richer hope they can purchase it. Paradoxically, they are both adding to the cause of 326

the predicament: the rich by increasing their resource consumption and the poor by 327

population growth. 328

329

The Consequences. Presently humans are consuming more than 150% of the annual 330

amount of goods and services biologically produced. This total potential biocapacity is 331

likened to a bank account of earth’s natural resources (natural capital). Instead of living 332

just on the interest, we are drawing down another 50% of the annual interest. Every 333

year the day on which we overshoot the annual production recedes by about four 334

days. As of this writing, the last Overshoot Day was 13 August 20151. Obviously, as the 335

natural capital decreases, the amount of annual production also decreases. Meanwhile, 336

the annual net world population is increasing at circa 77 million (the population of Iran). 337

As a result, the ratio of resource wealth to population has been decreasing 338

exponentially, with a half-life of about two decades. The ratio has decreased from 0.34 339

hectares per capita (parameter used to measure resource wealth) in 1961 to 0.07 per 340

capita in 20122. Likewise, the global trends in social conditions are downward, as 341

indicated by such relative measures as increasing economic inequality: for example, as 342

of 2014, 0.01% of wage-earning male adults owned 44% of all household wealth3. 343

These inequalities contribute to the instabilities of poorer societies; the number of 344

fragile states has increased from 28 in 2006 to 38 in 20154. In developed nations, 345

meanwhile, the rich can influence their governments toward plutocratic protectionism. 346

For both situations, the inequalities are self-perpetuating and deepen the potential for 347

international instability. For the poorer two-thirds of households, the combination of 348

environmental and social trends generates an increasing lack of arable land, water, 349

education, and health care. All these growing deficits further aggravate starvation, 350

epidemics, helplessness, and the chances of civil unrest, mass migrations, and armed 351

conflicts. For the richer third, the combination of these trends spurs efforts to squeeze 352

out more natural resources to convert into money with which to purchase convenience 353

and isolation from the problems of the rest of the world. 354

355

The Disbelief. This ominous analysis is by no means new, nor has it been proven 356

wrong; it is simply too often not understood or simply dismissed. This is more than four 357

decades since the struggle became public with the Club of Rome Report5, which 358

modeled the trajectories of population and resources to a Malthusian collapse early in 359

this century. Since then, these results have been aggressively discounted and became 360

a little-noticed symbolic contest between Cassandras and the Pollyannas, or more 361

specifically, between ecologists and economists. With much more data, we have now 362

confirmed that the human habitat in the 1970s was surpassing its carrying capacity—363

the point at which the annual production of natural goods and services equals the 364

annual demand. From then to now, we know that the trends in environmental 365


8

degradation and social inequalities have reached intolerable levels, and that we have 366

lost good opportunities to redress them by ignoring scientific evidence and by favoring 367

economic concerns or choosing disbelief instead. We also know that the Club of 368

Rome’s projections into this century have been validated with recent observations that 369

indicate a global collapse beginning around 2016. Meanwhile, a parallel time lag in 370

public belief has accompanied the intensification of climate-change phenomena, which 371

hopefully may be at an inflection point and accelerating (see Ch.2). 372

373

The Sustainability Crisis. Due to the lack of an effective management system, we are 374

facing unprecedented environmental and social debts, the integrated sum of which is 375

creating a global instability capable of triggering the cascade collapse of our 376

civilization. We cannot redress these debts with wars, colonization, money, tokenism, 377

or even via our present system of governance. We find ourselves in a treacherous 378

quandary between the urgency imposed by decreasing resources and increasing 379

population on the one hand and by on the other hand our inability to act quickly 380

because we are constrained by a wait-and-see attitude. Yes, we are locked in a crisis 381

management conundrum. Those of us who were paying attention to scientific fact have 382

foreseen this terrifying juncture for a half a century, while the public and our leaders 383

cannot wait longer for even bigger and brighter red flags to convince themselves of 384

what changes must be made. 385

Fortunately, a Cassandra counter-movement has grown alongside the disbelief and 386

inaction, and it is waiting in the wings for its turn on the world stage. Until now this 387

counter-movement has not yet grown enough in political weight, but has grown 388

steadily in numbers (made visible in the memberships of climate-change advocacy and 389

protest groups and in mass demonstrations worldwide), in science (hard and soft), in 390

technological potential, and in respect for human rights, such that we now have the 391

capacity to design a management system that is humane, efficient, and sustainable. 392

We know that: we have lost opportunities in the past, that the reversal process will now 393

be a longer one, and that we cannot miss our chance to put sustainable development 394

at the center of global social and economic concerns. The UN, which has long been a 395

major protagonist of sustainable development, has recently successfully conducted 396

three high-level international meetings late in 2015 “to chart a new era of sustainable 397

development”.6 398

Document Purpose. The purpose of this document is to raise public awareness by 399

presenting an integrated perspective on why our global human society is caught in a 400

sustainability crisis and how we must employ our scientific knowledge and cooperative 401

instincts to extricate ourselves from our precarious situation. It is not complete but 402

designed to inspire discussion to refine our approach to Sustainable Development. 403

Primary Arguments: 404

1. Human civilization is imminently susceptible to a cascade collapse as a result of a 405

suite of interrelated impacts that are collectively destroying the planet’s resilience 406

and our capacity to confront its problem. 407

2. Overconsumption by the rich and overpopulation by the poor are the root causes 408

of these impacts. 409

3. The economy must be restructured to be self-regulating and account objectively 410

for all capital: financial, environmental, and social. 411

4. Climate change is aggravating these impacts, extending their reversal times; and it 412

is increasing severe weather, sea levels, reducing agriculture production, 413

increasing diseases, deserts, and reducing biodiversity and our habitability. 414

5. Our governments have failed to plan the necessary actions and secure the 415

collective agreements needed for resolution of the crisis. 416


9

6. Most important is to gain the recognition that our present ”business-as-usual” 417

approach is leading us in the wrong direction, and that our present practices are 418

intensifying the urgency for the sustainable solutions we should be implementing. 419

7. The transition should be integrated on all societal levels and take guidance from 420

the natural phenomena of self-organization and the human attitudes of social 421

responsibility, justice, and cooperation. 422

8. The transition to sustainability will require the restructuring our social attitudes, 423

economic valuations, governance strategies, and cultural paradigms. 424

9. A sustainable configuration of the both the production and the distribution of 425

goods and services is the only viable alternative resource management structure 426

for our civilization. 427

10. The knowledge, technology, and methodology for this transition all exist and are 428

available whenever policy-makers and public have the will to implement them. 429

11. It is both suicidal and immoral that the present civilization exhausts the planet’s 430

organic and mineral resources for the sake of individual financial wealth. 431

12. Peace is fundamental element to sustainability and will emerge as an integral 432

result of the sustainable development process. 433

Necessary Complementary Changes 434

13. Birth rates must be lowered by humane means, like encouraging longer generation 435

times by improving women’s education, health care, and occupation/income. 436

14. Governments must become more representative through uncorrupted elections. 437

15. Policy-makers must be unfettered from corporate and other special interests. 438

16. Public awareness of the urgency and scope of global problems and sustainability 439

science must be incorporated into formal and informal education curricula. 440

17. Governing bodies at all levels must be cognizant of sustainability science, its 441

implementation, and the solutions appropriate to their electorates. 442

18. Regardless of intent or funding, the preventive solutions of most global problems 443

will not be achieved without the sustainable transformation of the economies and 444

governments of the rich nations whose actions are central to creating and 445

worsening these problems. 446

19. The societal paradigms must shift toward a spiritual vision of our purpose on earth: 447

that is, from a society that favors the well-being of a few to a society that is self-448

regulating and that places equal emphasis on the well-being of all humans and on 449

living in harmony with nature. 450

20. Cooperative international relations must make their highest priority resolving 451

conflicts and building regional space-free7 networks designed to share resources, 452

decrease financial inequalities, and increase employment to tolerable levels. 453

21. Climate-change resolution is impossible without an accompanying transition to 454

renewable energy sources and its infrastructure, which means that fossil-fuel 455

combustion, must be held to sustainable limits and land-absorption levels of CO2 456

must be restored. 457

22. Implementing sustainable development will require an integrated use of our 458

knowledge and wisdom for reorganizing our social attitudes, economic valuations, 459

and governance practices. 460

23. The methods needed for these changes are already being developed in many 461

separate experiments, but the knowledge they have collectively gained needs to 462

become the foundation of an integrated and coordinated National Strategy for 463

Sustainable Development8. 464

465


10

Chapter I 466

A. DEFINITIVE CHALLENGES 467

468

A1. Global Change 469

1.1 HUMAN PREDICAMENT 470

471

1.1a Resource Debt. The planet’s human societies and its ecosystems are 472

experiencing strong destabilizing trends to which national governments are not 473

adequately responding. The root causes of these trends are overpopulation and 474

overconsumption. Overpopulation is increasing the demand and overconsumption is 475

reducing the supply of renewable natural resources to a point of critically destabilizing 476

global human society. The industrial revolution of the eighteenth century resulted from 477

colonial access to the resources of the New World that led to labor-saving machines 478

that used cheap fossil energy. The resulting huge increases in productivity spurred the 479

development of modern societies and a culture without resource limits. Today we are 480

still simultaneously ignoring and paying the impossible cost of this fallacious approach. 481

The Human Predicament derives from the inability of humans to manage a quick and 482

effective response to the multiple impacts that are now destroying the human habitat. 483

A recent accounting, of the earth’s biocapacity1 (supply of goods and services from 484

nature) and the human ecological footprint9 (demand for this biocapacity) indicates that 485

we are consuming much more than what nature can replenish every year and are 486

continuing to devour the remainder. To put it another way, we are far past our carrying 487

capacity10 (and have been more and more so since the 1970s), and are currently 488

consuming more than 150% of the renewable resources that earth’s annual production 489

can supply (Fig. 1). It is the divergence between these two trends of demand and 490

supply that calls for an urgent transition to sustainability. The reasons for this 491

overshoot are economic, governmental, and cultural. In short, our technical capacity 492

combined with our for-profit economy have together outstripped our social 493

responsibility and our ability to wisely manage our societies and our environment. This 494

puts the entire human society in a very precarious, unstable, and unsustainable 495

condition. The transition to a more stable and sustainable world is still technically 496

possible on the condition that we can obtain a critical level of public awareness, a 497

restructuring of the global economy, a complete political commitment to Sustainable 498

Development in accord with the United Nations, and thorough collective international 499

work toward cooperative agreements. 500

The expression Global Change (GC) represents the degradation caused by the 501

exceeding of sustainable limits of both the natural and human systems by all nations. 502

In an effort to grow their financial wealth, the over consuming societies tend to shield 503

themselves from these problems, and they continue to pursue increased material 504

wealth while ignoring their dependence on the rest of the world and neglecting their 505

need for sustainable solutions. On the other hand, the overpopulated societies, 506

severely affected by economic inequality, continue to gamble on large families, to 507

consume resources for their survival, and consequently become less and less able to 508

initiate sustainable solutions. Thus, overpopulation and overconsumption are the root 509

causes of all the GC impacts. 510

511


11

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

Fig. 1 Depiction of the Ecological Footprint (ascending red line) indicating the demand for 526

renewable resources and of the Earth’s biocapacity (descending green line) indicating the 527

supply of Earth’s production of these resources. The graph is normalized to values estimated 528

to exist in 1961— symbolized by the globe to the left - and extend to those in 2012—529

symbolized by the globe and a half to the right. In other words, by 2012, humanity was 530

consuming 150% of the earth’s production relative to 1961. The color code on the right 531

indicates the contributions of the various human activities listed. The carbon footprint portion 532

(gray, and 55% of total) is a measure of the human disruption of the Carbon Cycle that is 533

changing the climate and impacting the ocean and land resources. Graph from Footprint 534

network11. The biocapacity plot was calculated from data from the same source. 535

536

It is through a lack of systemic self-regulation that these root causes have grown 537

and have generated a collection of global mega-problems that are reducing our 538

resilience and precluding a return to stability (Fig.2). The cumulative result of this 539

situation is an exponential deterioration and destabilization of the natural systems 540

available to support the wellbeing of all humanity. While we try to mitigate prominent 541

impacts separately, we overlook the preventive measures needed to reduce the two 542

root causes—that is, by changing the controls that can regulate them (Fig.2). All of 543

these impacts are so strongly interconnected that any combination of several of them 544

could collapse modern society, whether through economic collapse, population die-545

off, or nuclear war12 (Fig. 2). 546

Any of these collapse scenarios is clearly possible as an extension of the present 547

global condition, several of whose worst aspects are: financial instability, rampant 548

malnutrition, infectious diseases, social unrest, failed states, border wars, mass 549

migrations, and nuclear proliferation. The main point of Fig. 1 is that time is severely 550

limiting factor— an urgency compounded by the continuing rate of depletion of our 551

per-capita resource wealth, which makes our global society increasingly dysfunctional, 552

and which depreciates its capacity to effect rational and just governance. Collapse 553

could mean a gradual loss of functionality and resilience, or it could mean abrupt 554

phase shifts or huge natural disasters capable of precipitating a cascade loss of 555

functionality and of resilience in all sectors of human society. But slow or fast, collapse 556

is inevitable unless we immediately change course and accelerate sustainable 557

development. We note that the symbolic consensus of hope from the UN Summit13 558

2015]. 559

Global collapse-avoidance requires an immediate change in how we manage the 560

two root causes (Fig. 2) through a cooperative restructuring of management controls, 561

especially the economy and government (cf. Chap. 3 and 4). The best approach to 562

alleviating the degree of collapse is to initiate constructive corrections to these 563


12

management controls that orient them towards sustainable development (cf. Chap. 5) 564

and concurrently assist the human community to understand the self-organizational14 565

processes required by the transition to more sustainable societies. With these 566

measures and other (Chap. 5), we may be able to soften the collapse and rebuild from 567

it. Currently, the socially destabilizing consequences of GC (Fig. 2) are robbing us of 568

the time and the money urgently needed to devote to their solutions to prevent 569

anarchic degradation of our civilization. 570

571

Fig. 2 Schematic of the cause-and-effect links of Global Change caused by overpopulation 572

and overconsumption. These two causes have not been seriously addressed by the governing 573

elements that have not controlled their growth of the major problems that are now threatening 574

the stability of human habitat. These problems act both directly and indirectly, through a 575

complex set of mutual interactions that are degrading the stability and the level of wellbeing of 576

human societies. With continued degradation of resources, human society is becoming more 577

susceptible to a cascade collapse in the form of economic disintegration, population die-off, 578

and/or war. [Author generated15] 579

580

1.2a Wealth Gap. Today, humanity finds itself globally separated into three types of 581

nations according to their access to resources and their accumulated wealth. These 582

types are as follows: 5831) The most developed countries (MDCs), which have achieved an industrial transition and 584while resently ignore resource limitation; 5852) The least developed countries (LDCs), which have not made the industrial transition and 586suffer from a lack of per-capita resources due to a natural lack of them and/or to their 587exportation; and 5883) The developing countries (DCs), which form an intermediate group of nations between 589MDCs and LDCs that are mostly following the industrial trajectory of the MDCs and thereby 590are rapidly increasing their resource consumption. 591

The MDCs have maintained growth economies based on consumption of resident 592

resources and those imported from other countries. The LDCs have been mostly left 593

out of the benefits derived from the world’s resource pool and are left to scavenge for 594

survival because they lack the social and political infrastructure either to exploit their 595

own resources or to prevent richer nations from exploiting them. Both DCs and LDCs 596


13

aspire to MDC ranking. In this regard, it is of utmost importance that their development 597

does not follow the polluting and unsustainable trajectory of the MDCs, but that they 598

instead optimize the process of leapfrogging to less polluting, efficient technologies 599

and industries, avoiding Moreno-renewable energy use and its infrastructure. 600

All three of these national categories point toward increased resource consumption. 601

Our global economic model converts raw resources into financial wealth and 602

environmental debt. The social consequence of 603

competition for resources is an exponentially 604

increasing wealth gap between the MDCs and LDCs 605

which generates growing social unrest among LDC 606

populations striving for greater equality and freedom. 607

The DCs and LDCs continue to overpopulate due to 608

lack of birth control, male irresponsibility, lack of education and health care for women, 609

and the need for more family labor for subsistence. International resource competition 610

accentuates a global financial instability, manifested by an extraordinarily large and 611

growing wealth gap (Fig. 3). Humanity is hog-tied into this egregious situation by the 612

fact that none of the MDCs, DCs, or LDCs can solve their part of the problem 613

independently of the others. This inability is made even worse because these 614

destabilizing trends have inertia, and our ability to respond to them has an excessive 615

lag time (circa 2-3 decades). 616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

Fig. 3. Global Wealth Inequality. The distribution of total liquid net worth in the world per 632

person in 2012 is divided into the top 0.001% (91 thousand people), the next .01% (800 633

thousand people), the next .1% (8 million people), and the bottom (7 billion people Source16. 634

635

The current US economy allows wealth to accumulate upward where it is retained 636

by means of certain tax levels for individuals (like the hedge-fund manager exemption) 637

and numerous loopholes for corporations (like those allowing them to offshore their 638

profits to tax havens. Real wages are stagnant or falling for the majority of the 639

population, and the tax burden has been shifted away from the wealthy and onto 640

middle-income workers. The dynamic of ”the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer” 641

is valid at a national level and contributes strongly to social and political inequalities in 642

the form of: high inequality stifles upward mobility, partitions the levels of education 643

and health care, marginalizes the lower income levels, and over-concentrates political 644

power at the financial top (see Chap. 5.3). 645

Global wealth distribution (Fig. 4) is also strongly differentiated geographically. From 646

a political perspective, this mal-distribution will inhibit fairness in pursuit of the 647

collective agreements on trade, resources, and the technological practices needed for 648

Our growing resource

appetite excludes a

sustainable future


14

sustainable development. From a sustainable-development perspective, a much 649

improved wealth distribution would favor more efficient formation of just, sustainable 650

resource agreements between local and contiguous nations (cf. Chap. 5). 651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

Fig. 4 Global Wealth Distributions by Regions 2000. The regional differences in population 669

(red) and wealth (green) and in GDP (blue). The population is geographically concentrated in 670

Asia and the wealth in North America and Europe. Source17. 671

672

1.3a Paradigm Shift. If Global Change creates the Human Predicament, why can’t 673

we address our options: do we continue to destroy the natural systems that provide 674

our goods and services, or do we cooperate to preserve our planetary habitat and its 675

productivity? The answer appears to be a combination of the following causes: 676

1) Because political leaders and commercial information media do not adequately present 677

the facts (or actively suppress them), a plurality of the population doesn’t understand the 678

crisis or that it is already happening. 679

2) These same sources promulgate the soothing belief that we can adapt to any and all 680

consequences that might occur; and 681

3) Those that recognize the crisis but feel powerless are consequently inclined to believe 682

that either the crisis will somehow resolve itself or it will be resolved by the powerful. 683

These hesitations are not because we fear we cannot technically deal with GC, but 684

more likely that the rich third do not want to share their material and financial wealth 685

with the poorer two thirds. This lifeboat ethic is based on a false premise that the rich 686

are superior and will somehow survive, when the reality is quite the opposite because 687

the rich live at the top of a house of economic and social cards, have more to lose, and 688

cannot subsist by themselves without their social, environmental, political support. In 689

contrast, the world’s poor and working classes have relatively little to lose and loss is 690

not unfamiliar to them. They are more habituated to living with resource scarcity and 691

have experienced survival living through sharing collectively in their common interest. 692

The Human Predicament urgently calls for an extra-large paradigm shift in how we 693

manage our modern societies (Fig. 4). The reversal of the negative Global Changes 694

cannot be simply ‘fixed’; it will require a transformation of our economy and an 695

improvement of our democratic governance to support the goal of long-term 696

sustainability. Required, for example, is a holistic systems approach (cf. Chap. E.5.4) 697

that ensures a precautionary global integration of how we evaluate, anticipate, and 698

resolve the impacts of Global Change. The implementation will require an incrementally 699


15

balanced sequence of decisions that ensures resilience-building before each proposed 700

change in order to avoid precipitating a set of internal collapses. 701

The most difficult resilience-building tasks are the initial ones of achieving public 702

understanding of the necessity of sustainability and the political will to drive 703

appropriate management of their societies. Current convention might prioritize the 704

sequence of actions as follows: the need for public awareness precedes the public will 705

for urgent action, which precedes the political will, which 706

precedes the agreement for global cooperative action, 707

which precedes finally a social-technical methodology for 708

its implementation. However, these components of 709

implementing sustainable development cannot be 710

sequenced in time; a preset manner; instead efforts to implement them will occur in a 711

more-or-less contemporaneous and overlapping manner. They will remain, according 712

to their compatibility with connected components. Therefore e sequence for 713

implementation should not rigidly ordered from the top, but the top should support the 714

integration of ill-fitting components. This is because sustainability is a type of bottom-715

up governance and its development begins with a critical level of public awareness that 716

includes the many already existing efforts towards sustainability. When this knowledge 717

permeates all the action components of the conventional sequence, it will trigger a 718

self-organizational process that generates innovations within and across the 719

components. In the end the integration of all components will be balanced (computer 720

models) to optimize goals, such as energy-use, biocapacity, well being, and social 721

justice. As societal acceptance and practical engagement with the shared goal 722

become more popular, the process of sustainable development will strengthen and 723

become spontaneous and self-regulating, (see Chap. 5,E.4). 724

725

. 726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

Fig. 5 Diagram of the Paradigm Shift of the 21st Century. Toachievetheoutcomesshown745

requireschangesinthewaywethinkandinteractwithothersandwithnature.Thegoalisa746

balancebetweensocietalandindividualneedsinordertobetterbalancethedistributionofwell-747

beingamongtheentirehumancommunity.[Author generated18]. 748

749

1.4a Global Self-Organization. A global societal transformation (self-750

organization) is both essential and inevitable. Positive environmental and social self-751

Failure to respond

discredits our

social intelligence.


16

organizations are already occurring, but they are difficult to recognize amidst the 752

intensity of the existent destructive practices like fossil-fuel production, top-down 753

hierarchical structures, low minimum wages, etc. Responding to this exigency is a 754

highly diverse and rapidly growing body of the electorate that consists of individuals 755

and organizations dedicated to enact the cooperation and remediation needed to 756

achieve a sustainable equilibrium among human societies and with the natural systems 757

that support them. These voices need to dominate the dialogue towards an integrated, 758

authoritative plan on how we can orchestrate a balance between human material 759

needs and resource use that would provide a decent, sustainable universal living 760

standard. However, without recognition and guidance, the goal of betterment for 761

humanity will not necessarily emerge unless supported by a cooperative leadership of 762

world authorities. 763

Thus the expression ‘Human Predicament’ represents the uncertainty concerning 764

whether human societies will succeed in their struggle to counter their excess 765

consumption, population growth, and social inequalities, or else undergo feudal (or 766

LDC-level) mal-distributions of wealth and to self-destruction. The key to winning this 767

struggle is in the reversing of de-facto paradigms, crucially that “quantity is better than 768

quality”, that “competition rules over cooperation”, and that “only the rich will survive." 769

(Figs. 5a,b). Yes, this essential paradigm shift of short-term effort for long-term gain will 770

be initially difficult but will eventually become self-perpetuating. Currently, too many of 771

us remain ignorant of the benefits and too many of our leaders are not even aware of 772

the sustainability crisis, which still remains on the sidelines of the US political agenda. 773

On the bright side, driven by increasingly massive protests, the current US 774

administration is enacting moves toward this recognition (climate change mitigation, 775

minimum wage, cooperative international accords). Moves toward greater 776

sustainability are a UN priority19 and are blossoming within communities and will 777

continue to do so as the need for and benefits of sustainable development become 778

more obvious and more feasible. 779

780

781

782

783

Fig. 5a Yeah, and you know, now we won’t have to be rich to belong! (NYT). 784

Fig. 5b Should we have pity for Climate-Change Deniers? (NYT, 17 Jan 14) 785

786


17

A.2. Climate Change 787

2.1 DEFINING THE ISSUE 788

789

2.1a Earth Systems. In this document, we will make frequent reference to 790

systems and their characteristics. A system is an integrated set of processes that has a 791

definable function. The adjective ‘complex’ emphasizes that a system can change its 792

function, composition, and structure through a self-organizational process stimulated 793

by its internal interactions between its subsystems, or by interactions with externally 794

connected systems. For this discussion, we will represent the Earth System as 795

composed of four major subsystems: the natural systems (Terrestrial, Marine, 796

Atmospheric, plus the emergent Human system, often referred to as ‘Anthropic’ (Fig. 6). 797

Each of these subsystems is composed of networks of smaller component systems. 798

799

2.1b Systems Perspective. A characteristic of complex systems is that their 800

equilibrium is sensitive to both external and internal disturbances. When two systems 801

are dynamically coupled, a disturbance in one system can create disturbances in the 802

other system. Each system has levels of resilience that allow them to recover their 803

equilibrium, or not, from internal or external disturbances. Systems, including the 804

internal systems of organisms, recover through feedback loops, e.g. as our immune 805

system does from a cold after exposure to germs. However, if local external 806

disturbances exceed the resilience capacity of a living species for a long enough time, 807

and if it can’t migrate to a better environment, it will perish. Our current excessive rates 808

of species extinction are due to human disturbances weakening the resilience of plants 809

and animals through habitat destruction, changing climate, increasing pollution, and 810

overharvesting. Efforts to conserve biodiversity20 equate to efforts to conserve 811

resilience, which translates to an essential factor in our transition sustainable 812

management of ecosystems. 813

With regard to Climate Change, the human system is disturbing the atmosphere with 814

GHG emissions, chiefly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. As the upward 815

trend in emissions continues, the inter-system disturbances will continue to increase in 816

intensity and complexity in a manner mostly unfavorable to the three Natural systems. 817

Since the initial human disturbance is a continuing trend and not just an event (as an 818

large volcanic eruption), the atmosphere must continue to internally adjust, and 819

likewise so must the marine and terrestrial systems. That is, as these systems surpass 820

their resilience thresholds, they adjust through a self-organizational feedback process 821

to a more highly entropic state (that is, degrade to a less complex and less ordered 822

state). Important examples of such changes in Earth Systems due to climate change 823

are: 824

• The northern atmosphere changes its polar circulation—because its boundary (the Polar 825

Sea) changes from ice to water, which exposes the surface water to evaporation. This 826

warms and humidifies the air, making it less dense, causing it to rise and thereby disturb 827

the vertical structure of the polar vortex, which in turn slows and expands the jet stream’s 828

north-south oscillations. This both unusually warm and cold weather patterns in the sub-829

polar and mid-latitudes. 830

• The marine trophic changes—because as atmospheric CO2 increases, more of it is 831

dissolved in the ocean. This makes the water more acidic, which then renders the ocean 832

less able to support organisms that use calcium carbonate, such as corals, shellfish, and 833

some phytoplankton species. 834

• Terrestrial ecosystems and agriculture change—because they cannot adapt to the rates 835

of warming temperatures and changing rainfall patterns. 836

These climate-change impacts are acting to weaken important aspects of the Human 837

system’s resilience, because the supporting Earth systems are losing their resilience 838

and becoming less stable relative to their original equilibria. In other words, as the 839


18

three Earth systems continue to lose their resilience, we are losing plant and animal 840

species, and their functionality; we lose the biocapacity that we depend on. 841

Ironically, the most important loss of our resilience comes from our inability to 842

respond to the CC disturbance and to confront its root and intermediary causes of 843

overconsumption, neglect of resource value, emissions, bad land-use,. A non-844

response on the part of the human system would constitute a ‘positive feedback’ 845

(enhancing the disturbance), whereas human actions that counter the disturbance 846

would constitute a ‘negative’ feedback (quelling the disturbance). For example, if we 847

don’t like the way the climate is responding to our disturbance (GHG emissions), we 848

could respond with a negative feedback (cut off the emissions) such that the 849

atmosphere would gradually tend to return to its normal equilibrium (with normal 850

interactions). Unfortunately, this may not be the 851

case if the atmospheric dynamics have already 852

changed to accommodate the increased levels of 853

GHGs. In other words, if we could immediately 854

turn off the causal CO2 emissions, the average 855

amount of CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere 856

would decrease slowly because CO2 has average 857

residence time of 30-9521 yrs. However, the CC disturbances would continue while the 858

excess accumulation exists because the severity of CC impacts also depends on the 859

duration of that persistence. In addition, many of the CC impacts are strongly linked to 860

CC; for example, reduced ice cover lowers the amount of heat reflected back to space. 861

Consequently, when the CO2 accumulation starts to lessen, it will recede more slowly 862

than it would have if the CO2 absorption capacity of the earth’s surface had remained 863

at its starting point (cf. Chap 6). In sum, the CC impacts won’t shut off immediately, will 864

weaken slowly, and will differ in effect, in accordance with a new equilibrium between 865

the four earth systems. 866

Thus a focus on cutting emissions is only part of the solution to returning to 867

acceptable levels of GHGs. An even greater challenge is that of restoring the 868

absorption capacity of the marine and terrestrial systems. By itself, the recovery of the 869

atmospheric system would not ensure elimination the CC impacts, especially those for 870

which the dynamics controlling the interactions between the atmosphere and the 871

marine and terrestrial systems have changed irreversibly on a longer-than human time 872

scale, e.g. the glaciers may not return, the sea level won’t go down, forest ecosystems 873

may not recover. Furthermore, the complexity of the recovery processes suggests 874

additional uncertainties that many of the CC impacts may not return to their previous 875

levels of intensity. 876

These complex uncertainties bear directly on how quickly we respond to climate 877

change, which in itself creates more uncertainty. There is still a risk that too many 878

societies are hesitating to commit to sustainable development. That is, the 879

uncertainties and the lack of understanding of the urgent need generates a fearful 880

perception that the situation is impossible and that changing to a sustainable solutions 881

is more frightening than the consequences of not committing to them. This brings us 882

back to the need for public awareness of these GC impacts and the knowledge that 883

they are threatening the entire planetary habitat and consequently impacting all 884

humans, even those who are not responsible for causing them. Concurrently important 885

is the conviction that we must not be passive and that we must remember that the 886

Human system has an advantage over the other Earth systems: consciousness and the 887

ability to consciously self organize as well as to transform the material basis of our 888

societies by changing both core technologies (energy generation, agriculture, 889

transportation) and core social relationships. Only we can save ourselves, in other 890

words, with our superior intelligence and a consciousness that allows us to act 891

We cannot guarantee the

recovery of the historic

equilibria of the Earth

Atmospheric, Marine, and

Terrestrial Systems


19

deliberately to save our habitat and not have to wait for some genetic adaptation to a 892

changed planet. 893

894

2.1c. The Role of Climate Change in the Global Change. Climate Change is 895

caused directly by overconsumption and indirectly by overpopulation in the form of an 896

excess of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere that the altered marine and terrestrial 897

systems are less able to absorb. On both temporal and spatial scales, CC is the largest 898

contributor to our excessive ecological footprint (Fig. 1). Its widely diverse impacts 899

aggravate other major man-made problems (Fig. 2). The continuing increase in GHG 900

emissions forces an extreme urgency for humans to respond. Of great importance for 901

us to remember also is that the GHGs and other air pollutants (cf. EPA listing22are 902

intermediary causes responsible for CG and CC. As shown in Fig. 2, the primary 903

controls that are mismanaging our society are our economy, governance, and culture. 904

Any CC strategy that fails to recognize this will fail – as explained in later Chapters. 905

906

907

908

909

910

911

912

913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

Fig. 6 A pictorial representation of the major components of the Earth’s complex system with 928

the Marine, Terrestrial, Atmospheric, and Human subsystems and their two-way connections. 929

The three natural subsystems have evolved to interact with each of the others in such a way as 930

to maintain a balanced equilibrium governed by the energy input of the sun. This equilibrium 931

has evolved over a long history of change to its present form, which has maintained a balance 932

despite significant variations in each of the subsystems and in the sun’s radiation. The human 933

system has emerged from an insignificant portion of earth’s biological system to a uniquely 934

significant subsystem that has greatly increased its interactions with each of the three natural 935

systems (colored arrows). As a result, these natural systems are losing their resilience, and the 936

human system is losing the quality and quantity of the goods and services that humans 937

demand from the natural systems. [Author generated]. 938

939

Climate Change plays two critical roles in our global transition to a sustainable, safe 940

condition. On the negative side, CC acts to amplify the other Global Change problems. 941

On the positive side, the approach needed to resolve CC should serve as a prototype 942

strategy for resolving the other global problems. In other words, the approach and 943


20

strategies needed to reverse CC overlap with those needed to resolve the other Global 944

Change problems, many of which are both contributing to and aggravated by CC. 945

The fact that CC has a very long reversal time acts to extend the reversal time of 946

those GC impacts that are dynamically connected with CC. Some examples of GC 947

impacts for which the non-resolution of CC is extending reversal times are: the 948

salinization of ground water in coastal aquifers, the desertification of grazing lands, and 949

the acidification of the ocean,. Without immediate effective action, preventive reversal 950

of some other GC impacts will likely extend far beyond the human time scale to that of 951

hundreds or thousands of years, e.g. sea level, ice cover, biodiversity, and even 952

persistence of the human species. Note that all bets are off at the millennial scale when 953

the planet is scheduled to return to an ice-age due to less sunlight in the northern 954

hemisphere as the earth ends its "interglacial optimum period."23 955

The complexity of these connections between CG impacts (Fig. 2) implies that the 956

scientific work, international political cooperation, and national policies needed to solve 957

CC will bear significantly on the resolution of the other global trends. It also implies that 958

we must use a systems approach24 that employs model simulations in a 959

transdisciplinary framework composed of natural and social sciences working in 960

tandem with the public and policy stakeholders (cf. Chap 5). Unfortunately, many in the 961

US feel that we would be giving up our sovereignty by working in cooperation with the 962

UN on CC. In reality, we would gain an essential collaborator and connections with the 963

community of nations. A most important example where this framework is needed is in 964

devising our best response to CC, which should begin by phasing out fossil fuel 965

combustion and phasing in a transition to renewable energy from other sources. In 966

Europe and in the US, this transition is already well underway, in large part due to the 967

tireless efforts of a growing number of climate activists. For example, the Sierra Club25 968

has been able to block the construction of over 400 new coal-fired power plants since 969

the turn of the century. But the transition is still largely unsupported by government 970

action and it is not proceeding fast enough to counter the rapid growth in GHG 971

emissions from large MDCs like China, India, and Brazil as they urbanize. 972

973

2.2 FINDING OUR RESPONSE 974

975

2.2a. Current Situation. For the last several decades, it has been difficult for the 976

public to accept is that CC is already happening and that it will continue to increase in 977

intensity and uncertainty. This difficulty holds equally for the policymakers who have 978

wanted up-front predictions of risks and damage costs before committing to action. 979

Initially, it was difficult for scientists to make 980

defensible predictions due to a lack of data to valid 981

their models. However, in the 1980s, trends in 982

environmental parameters were becoming 983

significantly different than their long-term averages, e.g. in CO2 concentrations, sea 984

level, air temperature, glacial melt, etc. These data allowed scientists to more 985

accurately model extrapolations from which they could provide reasonable predictions 986

with fewer uncertainties. 987

In 1992 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change26 (IPCC) issued its First 988

Assessment Report confirming that the atmospheric greenhouse effect was increasing 989

due to excess emissions of GHG. In that same year, the UN Earth Summit issued its 990

guide of 27 Principles relevant to Sustainable Development27, one of which was that 991

States should abide by the Precautionary Principle: i.e. “Where there are threats of 992

serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a 993

reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” 994

Twenty-three years and much more accurate predictions later, the need for 995

Our enemy is not CO2, but

our management system

that can’t find the off valve


21

precautionary action is all the more urgent and justified. In 1992, George H. Bush 996

signed the final text making the US a signatory to Agenda 2128. Since Agenda 21 was a 997

legally non-binding statement, Congress was not required to debate it as if it were a 998

treaty. It has remained much too controversial to pass approval in Congress, with the 999

opposition arguing that it is “erosive to our sovereignty”29 In contrast, 528 US cities 1000

have become members of ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability30 that helps to 1001

implement the Agenda 21 and its concepts. 1002

Two decades later, the internal adjustments of the atmosphere have become 1003

obvious, notably through changes in its circulations that now distribute greater excess 1004

heat and water vapor poleward in the form of more intense storms dispersed over 1005

larger geographic areas. These same atmospheric changes are driving changes in the 1006

Marine, Terrestrial, and Human systems. The ocean’s equilibrium state is experiencing 1007

abnormal changes in its heat storage, its carbon balance, and its surface ice coverage, 1008

each of which drives further changes in ocean circulation, sea level, acidity, biological 1009

populations, and exchanges with the atmosphere. Likewise, the terrestrial system is 1010

also put in disequilibrium by these atmospheric changes, manifested by floods, 1011

droughts, loss of biodiversity, glacial melting, earthquakes, and unseasonal weather 1012

that in turn disturbs microbial, insect, plant, animal, and human populations. All of 1013

these changes bear on the biocapacity that humans depend on. If human activities 1014

were properly coupled to the three Earth systems, humans could self-regulate these 1015

activities in response to these impact signals and thereby sustain their equilibria. 1016

Instead the majority of the human population is still uninformed, in denial, or in 1017

opposition, and is not demanding a proactive and effective response, and hence 1018

allowing the impacts to increase. The US Republican Party platform, for example, 1019

criticizes the President for having raised the security risk status of CC to the highest 1020

level, that is, equivalent to the threat of foreign military aggression (an assessment 1021

backed by the defense Department!)31. 1022

1023

2.2b. Confronting Climate Change. The options for humans in response to these 1024

signals are panicking, adapting, mitigating, or preventing (Fig. 7). Prevention means 1025

eliminating the causal conditions in order to allow the three earth systems to establish 1026

new interdependent equilibria. There is no guarantee that any of the systems would 1027

exactly replicate its historic equilibrium, because the changes that have occurred are 1028

not always or exactly reversible and because the initial conditions for the reversal in 1029

each case would be different. For example, a previously dominant species that has 1030

been weakened may not regain its dominance, the previous ice cover of the Arctic 1031

Ocean and polar atmospheric circulation may not recover, or the desertified grasslands 1032

of the continents may not become re-established. 1033

Examples of immediate mitigative CC actions that would significantly help stabilize 1034

climate are a roughly 80% reduction of total GHG emission sources and similar 1035

improvements in the land process for CO2 absorption sinks. If both of these actions 1036

were quickly and resolutely taken, the eventual new equilibria of the three natural 1037

systems might be closer to the historic ones. Meanwhile adaptive strategies would be 1038

needed to conserve and assist vulnerable areas and populations. Concurrently and 1039

most importantly would be a first-order focus on preventive solutions to CC. Obviously, 1040

these actions will require large and difficult changes, but they will result in reducing our 1041

present ecological footprint and in restoring the biocapacity supporting it. However, 1042

achieving these goals will concurrently require changing to a sustainable economy, 1043

more representative governments, and global collective cooperation agreements (cf. 1044

Chap. 4 & 5). 1045

1046


22

Because of the complexity of CC, let alone that of CG, it is of paramount 1047

importance that we confront the CG issues in a holistic and systematic manner to 1048

minimize mistaken or poor policies. This raises a catch-22 dilemma that the needed 1049

new policies must be carried out by and through the projected new sustainable 1050

economy and modified sustainable government. An integrated systems approach 1051

framework32 can best cope with such a dilemma (cf. Chap. 5 & 6). To minimize 1052

ineffective policy decisions, policy options are first simulated and sorted into a 1053

synergistic sequence. This sorting matrix will involve parameters of urgency, 1054

importance, difficulty, risk, and valuations of costs and benefits based on inclusion of 1055

all three capitals. Basically, it will involve immediate adaptive policies that are 1056

straightforward and can act as constructive precursors for the more complex policies 1057

that have large risk factors, such as protecting populated coasts. The shift to focus on 1058

more complex or difficult policies must also begin immediately (model development) so 1059

that they can provide a graduated set of scenarios for policy options for mitigation 1060

policies that can support the essential preventive strategies that must eventually be 1061

enacted. The NOAA Earth Systems Model33 is a valuable example of iterative 1062

simulations of scenario results. 1063

1064

1065

1066

1067

1068

1069

1070

1071

1072

1073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

1079

1080

Fig. 7 There are four ways that we can respond to impacts: Panic (wrong response), Adaptive 1081

(live with it), Mitigative (lessen its effect), and Preventive (eliminate its cause). Rarely are 1082

problems static in dynamic systems: some change is inevitable. If the impact is increasing, it is 1083

important to select as high a level of response as feasible; and if not, to select one that can be 1084

upgraded, e.g., from mitigative to preventive. Methodology exists for simulating their 1085

trajectories relative to different management options, so as to guide management34. 1086

1087

A sustainable energy plan must be inclusive of CC. In other words, the actions we 1088

take to resolve the CC issue must be building blocks of a sustainable energy plan, and 1089

vice versa. This plan would proceed with priority adaptive strategies that can be 1090

carried out with current management, meanwhile initiating feasible mitigative strategies 1091

that are at least feasible with an improving management and compatible with 1092

preventive strategies that require a transformed management. All practices must be 1093

designed to facilitate upgrades, and the total process evolves. Some (non-prioritized) 1094

examples of this sequence relative to the CC issue of strategies would be: 1095

• Panic (maintaining unsustainable policies): Subsidizing oil and coal energy production; 1096

promoting industrial agricultural practices; not honestly explaining to the crisis to the 1097


23

public; continuing excessive consumption, not making the CC issue a national security 1098

priority. 1099

• Adaptive (resilience-building policies): Imposing a gradually increasing carbon fee on FF 1100

sources36; divesting from FF equity assets; cutting carbon combustion; conserving 1101

energy by all means available; explaining to the public the need for and benefits of 1102

sustainable development; promoting the transitions of agriculture, industry, 1103

transportation, and power-generation to greater robustness and sustainability; protecting 1104

the coasts against sea-level rise,. 1105

• Mitigative (infrastructure policies): Transforming the energy infrastructure for renewable 1106

energy; phasing out coal and unconventional petroleum (shale, tar, and gas fracking, and 1107

agriculture biofuel); redesigning buildings for energy conservation; modernizing local and 1108

national rail; encouraging installation of photovoltaics on buildings; re-designing the 1109

electrical grid for local generation; using rail for long transport of containers; increasing 1110

use of renewables for shipping; phasing out internal-combustion vehicles; creating the 1111

charging infrastructure for all-electric vehicles; converting heavy transport vehicles to 1112

hybrid power or hydrogen fuel cells; producing biofuel (methane) from solid and sewage 1113

waste; adapting ecological practices for manufacturing37. 1114

• Preventive (complete, sustainable energy-related policies): building on the adaptive and 1115

mitigative policies to bring the atmospheric heat balance to equilibrium; returning to 1116

sustainable agriculture and forest management; phasing out carbon combustion; cutting 1117

excess consumption; near complete waste reduction, reusing, recycling; further 1118

developing diverse and well-distributed renewable energy sources including waste-to-1119

energy biofuel, wind and tide, solar-hydrogen as a primary source. 1120

1121

To enact these policies, we need to quickly garner sufficient public and political will 1122

in combination with the best uses of our scientific & technical knowledge. Important 1123

requisites to this effort would be: 1124

1) To gain universal recognition that our present business-as-usual approach is leading 1125

us in the wrong direction. 1126

2) To transform our governance to one capable of addressing CC and CG issues. 1127

3) To transform present capitalist economies into sustainable ones that include self-1128

regulating controls and macroeconomic decisions based on social need and 1129

environmental sustainability. This transition requires that we conduct balanced 1130

assessments of all capital: financial, environmental, and social. That is, the new economy 1131

should internalize social and environmental capital as values instead of externalizing 1132

them. 1133

4) To connect policymakers to a comprehensive scientific framework that can assist in 1134

evaluating options for implementing the most efficient sequence of policy strategies 1135

needed for sustainability. 1136

1137

2.2c. Ongoing Situation. The changes occurring in the atmosphere, in the ocean, 1138

and on Land indicate that the atmosphere is already undergoing a self-organization 1139

that will further affect our planetary and societal systems regardless of whether we sit 1140

back and let it happen or not. On a decadal scale it is still difficult to predict a 1141

business-as-usual scenario, because of the uncertainty in important interactions 1142

between atmospheric change and the 1143

three other Earth Systems that are 1144

themselves very complex and interactive. 1145

Presently, the biggest uncertainty is the 1146

human interaction with the atmosphere: 1147

the question of how and when we are going change our activities. That is, will we 1148

continue crisis management or initiate a precautionary, prioritized systems approach? 1149

Including the interactions between the Earth Systems in expanded climate models is 1150

now a high priority and an absolute necessity so that we can better anticipate and 1151

respond to the impacts of CC. To reduce the uncertainty in such Earth System 1152

Our biggest uncertainty is whether or not we will have wise action from our governments, which currently can’t find the off-valve.


24

Models38 (EaSM) they need input from sophisticated monitoring of real-time data so 1153

that the models' dynamics can be made more accurate. For good decisions to be 1154

made about the response to CC impacts, the capacity to test policy options must be 1155

included in or linked to the EaSM. Obviously, this must be a global effort to achieve 1156

greater accuracy and to realize more efficient collective action. It must also lead to 1157

modeling of other environmental and social issues connected to CC. The United 1158

Nations and other international organizations (such as the IPCC) are contributing 1159

essential information by tracking global trends and airing them in summit meetings. 1160

1161

2.2d. UN Commitment to Climate Change. At the United Nations Summit 1162

conference on August 15 in New York, the member nations approved by consensus 1163

the post-2015 development agenda: entitled: ”Transforming Our World: The 2030 1164

Agenda for Sustainable Development.”39 This comprehensive Document represents a 1165

UN commitment to Sustainable Development by setting sustainable-development 1166

goals to be met by 2030 together with guidelines for their implementation and progress 1167

monitoring (cf. Chap. 5, E.4). This document became known as the Paris Agreement 1168

and was subsequently adopted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate 1169

Change40 (UNFCCC) held in Paris, December 2015. The UNFCCC had a priority focus 1170

on the thirteenth goal concerning Climate Change, to stabilize greenhouse gas 1171

concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous 1172

anthropogenic interference with the climate system . All 196 parties attending 1173

adopted the final document by consensus, thus providing a first precedent for 1174

complete Global Consensus and Cooperation, which in this case concerns a global 1175

goal of Sustainable Development and for immediate action on Climate-Change issue. 1176

With its consensus on the Paris Agreement, the UN renewed its commitment to an 1177

expansion of the previous eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and made 1178

them more comprehensive by adding another nine for a total of seventeen Sustainable 1179

Development Goals for 2030. See Chap. 5, E.1, and E.4 for more description. 1180

However, under present conditions, these UN efforts cannot accomplish these goals. 1181

Lacking the required authority, they cannot comprehensively address the root causes 1182

(Fig. 2) needed to commit to a sustainable transformation of global economies and 1183

governance. Discussion of this type of commitment is not even on the political horizon 1184

of most MDCs and DCs. For example, the United States, which has been the greatest 1185

contributor to CC, is only recently initiating a restrictive leadership role41, but its actions 1186

are not yet concomitant with its responsibility for the CC or GC problems. 1187

An example of this is the administration’s licensing Royal Dutch Shell to drill for oil in 1188

the Arctic Ocean even while the President was talking about the urgency of addressing 1189

CC during a visit to Alaska (fortunately, Shell decided the project was not cost-effective 1190

and abandoned it). Achieving this leadership will require a coordinated effort of the 1191

social, economic, and political sectors; but this has not yet begun. Also important will 1192

be the additional cooperation needed between the global scientific community, the 1193

public, and those political-industrial alliances that ultimately have the vested power to 1194

implement the changes needed. By not taking strong systematic action, the US 1195

government is failing to implement preventive strategies for CC resolution. Unless the 1196

government takes such action, the result will be an exponential increase of future costs 1197

far in excess of the present costs of continuing a delayed response with weak 1198

strategies. 1199

1200

2.2.d Some Adaptive Actions in the US. The Citizens Climate Lobby31 is 1201

advocating a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would exert market pressure to shift 1202

away from FF. This can be done with no cost to the public by returning the 1203

corresponding price increases at the pump as an IRS income tax deduction, thereby 1204


25

avoiding additional bureaucratic administration for its implementation. The tax would 1205

increase in time in order to deter the FF industry from ‘writing it off’ as a business 1206

expense, and it would generate a high public visibility by better reflecting the ‘real’ in 1207

price of carbon. As a simple adaptive action, it offers an intelligent start-up strategy to 1208

serve as a catalyst for the strategy for CC resolution. 1209

The non-profit 350.org42 is a bottom-up popular movement focused on solving the 1210

climate crisis through online campaigns, grassroots organizing, and mass public 1211

actions that are coordinated by a global network active in over 188 countries. Their 1212

focus is to make global leaders responsible “to the realities of science and the 1213

principles of justice”. 350.org groups are active in hundreds of local campaigns around 1214

issues like preventing oil trains from running through heavily populated areas, stopping 1215

or preventing fracking, fighting against oil and coal exports, and so on. 1216

The Climate Reality Project43 is another powerful movement that is fostering climate 1217

leaders to help educate and guide public awareness of how the climate-change crisis 1218

affects their lives and how they can contribute to its resolution. 1219

Other movements advocate divestment from fossil fuels44 on the moral grounds that 1220

“If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage. We 1221

believe that educational and religious institutions, city and state governments, and other 1222

institutions that serve the public good should divest from fossil fuels. We want 1223

institutions to immediately freeze any new investment in fossil fuel companies, and 1224

divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel public 1225

equities and corporate bonds within 5 years.” They specifically demand that publicly 1226

traded fossil-fuel companies immediately: 1227

1) Stop exploring for new hydrocarbons 1228

2) Stop lobbying in Washington and state capitols across the country to preserve their oil 1229

assets, 1230

3) Pledge to keep 80% of their current reserves underground forever; and 1231

4) Begin working with the governments to transition our energy sources and their 1232

distribution networks for renewable energy. 1233

By September 2014, 181 institutions and 656 individuals had committed to divest 1234

over $50 billion worth of fossil-fuel reserves. This movement is creating a carbon 1235

bubble for fossil-fuel assets, which constitutes a major threat to the viability of fossil-1236

fuel enterprises and stability of the market. The price of fossil-fuel assets is valuated on 1237

the basis that the known extractable reserves will eventually be consumed, which 1238

would release to 2.8 trillion tons of CO2. The current best estimate of the amount of 1239

CO2 that we can emit by 2050 to stay within the 2˚ C limit is only 0.5 trillion, or about 1240

20% of this total, most (about 80%) of which would come from coal reserves45. Hence 1241

the true costs of carbon dioxide in intensifying global warming is not taken into 1242

account in a company's stock market valuation. Citigroup predicts $100 trillion of 1243

stranded petroleum assets if the 2015 Paris Climate Summit succeeds46.1244

The many CC groups are indicators of the type of bottom-up organizations that are 1245

emerging to increase public awareness of the CC issue. However, it will take an 1246

integration of all environmental and social movements to force global leaders to 1247

address the paradigm changes and phase shifts that that will eventually be needed. 1248

That these will be extremely difficult is no excuse for 1249

not starting immediately, as in the 2015 December 1250

Summit. Until we transform our consumptive economy 1251

to a sustainable one, we are losing all options for CC 1252

resolution. Critically missing is a strong movement for 1253

sustainable development with a sustainable economy. Once we dedicate ourselves to 1254

sustainability, the integration all of these supportive movements will have a greater 1255

apparent value and mission. As such they can catalytically cause a constructive, cycle 1256

A growing GDP is not compatible with cutting GHG emissions


26

of self-organization towards sustainable energy use and infrastructure, towards a green 1257

economy, and towards a public consensus for investing in our long-term wellbeing. 1258

1259

1260

A.3. Public Awareness. 1261

1262

3.1 MESSAGES AND MESSENGERS. 1263

1264

3.1a Familiarity with Message. The signal of Climate Change is real and its 1265

causes are well established. Less known are the technical and policy solutions needed 1266

to eliminate these causes. The residual uncertainty surrounding the CC issue derives 1267

not from errors in the scientific evidence (as claimed by climate deniers) but from a lack 1268

of understanding of the problem. Without sufficient public familiarity and hence without 1269

political will for their reduction or elimination, our disturbances to the Earth’s systems 1270

and their associated impacts will continue to increase. Acquiring this familiarity 1271

requires a learning process about an issue that is very different from historically 1272

reoccurring problems like war, poverty, endemic or pandemic disease, tyranny, and the 1273

like. In short, CC is an invisible, complex threat of a kind never before encountered. 1274

Unfamiliarity with the issue tends to make our response to it susceptible to 1275

misinterpretations and to obfuscations (concerning the type and the urgency of the 1276

responses needed by an individual or by a policy-maker (Chap. 3, Fig. 12). 1277

The process of gaining familiarity has two tracks: one based on rational thought 1278

(scientific progression) and other on belief systems—cultural or faith convictions (see 1279

Chap. 5.5). In presenting an issue, one might start by trying to match one’s information 1280

with the listener’s belief system, or one might find a match with the listener’s rational 1281

thought. However, a listener presented with a sequence of logical, fact-based 1282

arguments is likely at some point to lose connection with it and switch to an attempt to 1283

connect the arguments to his or her belief system, respectively. In short, complete 1284

communication is difficult because each person will have different thresholds for 1285

connection to rational explanations and to those relating to her or his belief-system, 1286

respectively. This is why a gradual and recurrent exposure to information from differing 1287

perspectives is needed to ensure an acceptable level of familiarity with a complex 1288

issue. Clearly, the presenter must know the audience, understand the rational 1289

arguments, and be cognizant of the differing belief-systems of the audience on the 1290

topic (see Chap 5.5). 1291

1292

3.1b Messengers. In addition, there is also the problem of the messengers 1293

describing the threats and its solutions. It is important to distinguish between the 1294

threats (the projected consequences already represented by observable facts) and the 1295

solution (how one would be involved in the resolution of the threat). Generally, science 1296

presents observable facts and how these facts are changing relative to some prior 1297

state, some already existing impact, or some rate of degradation: for example: “OK, 1298

the sea level is rising, but how does that translate to 'When I will have to move my 1299

beach house?'” Science by itself is not given the responsibility to solve problems but 1300

can provide invaluable assistance regarding the technology needed, the cost, and the 1301

effectiveness of policy options for their solution. The message of messengers varies 1302

with distance from its origin: 1303

• The first-level messengers are the scientists who publish the evidence of change and its 1304

consequences in scientific journals, which are not generally read by the public. Those 1305

who wish to publicly deny the verity of scientific findings should provide scientifically 1306

derived evidence (not opinion) concerning which facts are supposedly in error. 1307


27

• The second-level messengers are those who have (or have not) come to believe in the 1308

scientific evidence and are trying to shift public opinion and policy. Believers (like, say, Al 1309

Gore or Bill McKibben) are generally activists who trust science and therefore want to 1310

spread information about CC impacts and their solutions and persuade both politicians 1311

and the public of the urgent need for action. Those who claim to be unconvinced, 1312

including a tiny minority of scientists and persons with a spurious scientific authority, 1313

work to persuade the public and elected representatives against taking any action on the 1314

issue. 1315

• Third-level messengers from the mainstream media and the blogosphere who are 1316

interpreting either or both of the previous messenger types then often further confound 1317

the public. Much of the emotional reaction towards CC derives from the uncertainty and 1318

fear concerning the changes one might have to make in one s individual lifestyle. 1319

Thus the public is exposed to a mixture of these communications that tends to 1320

obscure the original information as scientifically demonstrated fact. This exposure 1321

often results in a reinterpretation of the information in the form of political controversy 1322

(in which the mainstream media simply present claims from both sides without 1323

evaluating them) such that much of the public is prone to dismiss the threat of CC until 1324

it becomes more apparent to them. 1325

Through this muddle of information sources, the public gets a confused exposure to 1326

the in-depth factual aspects of CC’s potential impact on our society and its global 1327

connections. Consequently, the public lacks enough familiarity with the issue to judge 1328

the boundary between fact and fiction. Hence the public is worried about: 1329

• Political leadership being also confused and hesitant to decide on a plan of action; 1330

• Scientific facts supposedly being exaggerated in a self-serving manner to secure higher 1331

funding for researchers; 1332

• Whether traditional big energy companies will in fact shift away from fossil fuels; 1333

• The possibility that any solution will generate greater suffering and inconvenience due to 1334

the supposed CC threat. 1335

Exploiting these and other similar concerns, climate deniers gain audience with those 1336

who are grasping for the hope that the issue is a false alarm. This level of confusion 1337

promotes polarization and generates a poor social environment for decision-making. 1338

Therefore, the public dissemination of accurate knowledge about CC and its solutions 1339

must be given highest priority. In fact, this is already happening, as there exist already 1340

about 45 US based nonprofits alone with CC advocacy on their agendas47. 1341

1342

3.1c Message to Policy. In a representative democracy, political questions 1343

should ideally be decided at the level of the individual voter, who chooses 1344

representatives based on their stated positions on these questions. However, social 1345

groupings of individuals composed of like-minded others can informally or formally 1346

sway an individual to vote with them. There are impartial means of improving this 1347

process through more in-depth airing, informing, discussing, and prioritizing solutions 1348

to important problems, such as those promoted by the League of Women Voters48. 1349

There are also many partial ways to intervene between the public and the policymaker. 1350

These vary widely in potency and motive, from special-interest groups, of which by far 1351

the most powerful are corporations institutes that can block legislation, (e.g. the 1352

American Petroleum Institute or the National Rifle Association), to organized groups of 1353

voters that advocate legislative reform on gun-issues, such as, labor-oriented groups, 1354

nonprofits, and commercial media that accepts payment (typically in the form of 1355

advertising revenue) for opinion-biased programs and announcements. These special 1356

interest groups and individuals also can influence the election by pushing a favorite 1357

candidate or issue with material or financial rewards. Thus, especially since the 1358

Citizens United decision, financial influence is an overwhelming factor in US elections. 1359


28

Candidate selection is made worse by the excessive length of campaigns and/or by 1360

choosing candidates through a non-representative proxy process. 1361

Nonprofit advocacy groups promote positions that are mostly in the public’s 1362

interests and are supported by individual donors. Citizens concerned about a particular 1363

issue using information and voting pressure to gain the attention of politicians build 1364

advocacy groups. For example, the many CC groups emphasize different aspects of 1365

the CC issue: policy, economics, technical solutions, research, or the security and 1366

wellbeing of our country and planet. When talking to members of the public about CC 1367

issues, it is important for advocates to be empathetic, especially with those far behind 1368

them on the learning curve, where all of us started out. Spoken science can be 1369

intimidating and should not be explained in a belittling manner but in the context of 1370

caring for the common good. 1371

It is important also that the CC advocates be diverse in a manner representative 1372

of the general public, e.g. in occupation, in expertise, and in cultural background and 1373

orientation. Such diversity provides a broad range of social experience with public 1374

engagement that can help build a more integrated approach. For example, in a local 1375

newspaper or news journal, a group could publish a linked sequence of articles that 1376

would build a broader perspective on the need and urgency of CC action. A similar 1377

approach can be used in responding to comments of “concerned, cautious, or 1378

doubtful” members of the local population and might be more effective than a series of 1379

disconnected articles. AmericaSpeaks49 was a very successful non-profit that 1380

combined a number of deliberative methods to educate, discuss, and create 1381

consensus on important issues to provide policy makers (participating) with a solid 1382

basis to make legislative solutions. These methods are important considerations for 1383

presenting constructive information, avoiding mixed or conflicting messages, and 1384

achieving a greater level of consensus for urgently needed action. (Note, Chap. 2 1385

further discusses the issue of public awareness). 1386

1387

Endnotes Forward and Chapter 1 1388

1Overshoot Day (Environmental Debt Day) – the day of the year when we our Ecological

Footprint exceeds Biocapacity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Debt_Day

• Biocapacity is the annual reproduction of goods and services utilized by humans. • Ecological Footprint “is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems, the

amount of natural capital used each year” Wikipedia. • Carrying Capacity is the maximum load a society can impose on its environment and still

prosper. 2 Rees, W. E. , 2006. “Ecological Footprints and Bio-Capacity: Essential Elements in

Sustainability Assessment,”in Renewables-Based Technology: Sustainability Assessment, Jo deWulf and Herman Van Langenhove, eds., Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 143–158;

3Henry, J,, 2012. Original source: The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for Missing

Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality, and Lost Taxes, Press Release, Tax Justice Network, July 2012, pp. 5Missing Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality, and Lost Taxes", Press Release, Tax Justice Network, July 2012, pp 5.

4Fund for Peace, http://library.fundforpeace.org/fsi14Retrieved 26 February 2015 5Kanninen, T. 2013. Club of Rome Projections Then and Now: New Global Institutions needed.

http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=5984 6United Nations. 2013. The millennium development goals report. United Nations, New York,

New York, USA. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/beyond2015-news.shtml 7 Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological

systems. Science 325:419– 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133 8National Strategies for Sustainable Development.

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/globalsdreport/ 9

10 Global Footprint Network. Advance the Science of Sustainability.

www.footprintnetwork.org/


29

11 Global Footprint Network. Advance the Science of Sustainability.

www.footprintnetwork.org/ 12 Nuclear War. For this discussion, we exclude nuclear war, which would be of similar scale,

but would cause even greater damage, and would also generate additional impacts to global climate as a possible final consequence will not be discussed for obvious reasons.

13 United Nations. 2013. The millennium development goals report. United Nations, New York, New

York, USA. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 14 Capra, F., 1996. The Web of Life, HarperCollins Publishers, Hammersmith, London. pp 320

• Throughout this text, we will use the word self-organization to refer to the reorganizational process that systems undergo in recovering from sudden stresses or damaging trends.

15 Hopkins, T. S., 2001. Scientific Concepts and Global Problems. North Carolina State University, Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences Course Pac MEA 430, 172 pp.

16 Ibid. # 3 17 Credit Suisse, Research Institute's "Global Wealth Databook", published 2013 18

Ibid. #13 19 Ibid. #6 20

Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf 21

Residence time is a term used to estimate the average length of time of a substance remains in a reservoir or system. For example the length of time CO2 molecule emitted from a vehicle remains in the atmosphere. Its residence time depends on how and where it enters the atmosphere, and how it reacts chemically in the atmosphere, leaves the atmosphere, or how quickly it is absorbed by land or water. For this reason its average time can only be estimated. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Atmospheric_lifetime. 22

EPA Air Pollutants http://www.epa.gov/air/airpollutants.html 23 Interglacial Optimum period – The period when the northern hemisphere gets maximum

exposure to sunlight within the Milankovic Cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial#

24 Hopkins, T.S. D. Bailly, R. Elmgren, G. Glegg, A. Sandberg, J. Støttrup. 2012. A Systems

Approach Framework for the Transition to Sustainable Development: Potential Value based on Coastal Experiments. In: Ecology and Society Special Feature Volume, 16(4) http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/

• Fiksel, J. 2006. Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach.

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 2 (2):14-21. [online] URL:

http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/v ol2iss2/0608-028.fiksel.html 25

Sierra Club, http://www.sierraclubfoundation.org/node/158 26

International Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC),

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml 27 Precautionary Principle. Listed among the 27 Principles to guide sustainable development

of the Rio Declaration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Declaration_on_Environment_and_Development

28 Earth Summit, 1992. US becomes a signatory country to Agenda 21

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21 29 The 2012 Republican Platform The Republican Party Committee

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf 30 ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability. http://www.iclei.org 31Ibid. #25 32 A Systems Approach Framework for Coastal Zones. 2011, Hopkins , T. S., D. Bailly,

and J. G. Støttrup. 2011. A systems approach framework for coastal zones. Ecology and

Society 16(4): 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04553-16042 33 Earth Systems Models, http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/earth-system-mod 34 Hopkins,T.S. and D. Bailly 2012. The role of science in the transition to sustainability: the

systems approach framework for integrated coastal zone management. In: E. Moksness, E Dahl, and J St⌀ttrup, editors. Integrated coastal zone management. 2nd edition. Wiley-Blackwell.

36 Citizens’ Climate Lobby, www.citizensclimatelobby.org 37 Industrial Ecology 2nd Edition. 2010.T. E. Graedel, B. R. Allenby. 38 Ibid. # 30 39 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld 40 120815 outcome-document-of-Summit-for-adoption-of-the-post-2015-

development-agenda.pdf.


30

41

US leadership for Climate Change and other GC is restricted by the current Congress, which would undoubtedly continue if the opposition party remains after 2016 elections.

42 The 350.org movement. http://350.org 43 Climate Reality Project. https://www.climaterealityproject.org 44 Fossil Free, Divesting from Fossil Fuels. gofossilfree.org

• Fossil fuel divestment: a brief history. www.theguardian.com. The Guardian. Retrieved 26 February 2015.

45 Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_divestment 46 CitiGroup, RenewEconomy, 25 August 2015 47 Climate Change non-profits, 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Climate_change_organizations 48

League of Women Voters/Making Democracy Work, lwv.org/ 49

AmericanSpeaks, was a non-profit organization whose mission was to "engage citizens in the public decisions that impact their lives."

Documents

SUSTAINABILITY CRISIS Climate Change, and Sustainable ... · We employ this 12 focus because neither the public nor our policy-makers are responding adequately to the 13 worsening